↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the Psychometric Properties of Two Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Instruments in Urban, Adolescent Girls: Validity, Measurement Invariance, and Reliability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing the Psychometric Properties of Two Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Instruments in Urban, Adolescent Girls: Validity, Measurement Invariance, and Reliability
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01301
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vicki R. Voskuil, Steven J. Pierce, Lorraine B. Robbins

Abstract

Aims: This study compared the psychometric properties of two self-efficacy instruments related to physical activity. Factorial validity, cross-group and longitudinal invariance, and composite reliability were examined. Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on data from a group randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of a 17-week intervention on increasing moderate to vigorous physical activity among 5th-8th grade girls (N = 1,012). Participants completed a 6-item Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale (PASE) and a 7-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise Behaviors Scale (SEEB) at baseline and post-intervention. Confirmatory factor analyses for intervention and control groups were conducted with Mplus Version 7.4 using robust weighted least squares estimation. Model fit was evaluated with the chi-square index, comparative fit index, and root mean square error of approximation. Composite reliability for latent factors with ordinal indicators was computed from Mplus output using SAS 9.3. Results: Mean age of the girls was 12.2 years (SD = 0.96). One-third of the girls were obese. Girls represented a diverse sample with over 50% indicating black race and an additional 19% identifying as mixed or other race. Both instruments demonstrated configural invariance for simultaneous analysis of cross-group and longitudinal invariance based on alternative fit indices. However, simultaneous metric invariance was not met for the PASE or the SEEB instruments. Partial metric invariance for the simultaneous analysis was achieved for the PASE with one factor loading identified as non-invariant. Partial metric invariance was not met for the SEEB. Longitudinal scalar invariance was achieved for both instruments in the control group but not the intervention group. Composite reliability for the PASE ranged from 0.772 to 0.842. Reliability for the SEEB ranged from 0.719 to 0.800 indicating higher reliability for the PASE. Reliability was more stable over time in the control group for both instruments. Conclusions: Results suggest that the intervention influenced how girls responded to indicator items. Neither of the instruments achieved simultaneous metric invariance making it difficult to assess mean differences in PA self-efficacy between groups.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 9 18%
Psychology 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,441,465
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,366
of 30,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,078
of 317,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#529
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 584 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.